Background To meet emergent healthcare needs, innovations need to be implemented into routine clinical practice. Community pharmacy is increasingly considered a setting through which innovations can be implemented to achieve positive service and clinical outcomes. Small-scale pilot programmes often need scaled up nation-wide to affect population level change. This systematic review aims to identify facilitators and barriers to the national implementation of community pharmacy innovations. Methods A systematic review exploring pharmacy staff perspectives of the barriers and facilitators to implementing innovations at a national level was conducted. The databases Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Open Grey were searched and supplemented with additional search mechanisms such as Zetoc alerts. Eligible studies underwent quality assessment, and a directed content analysis approach to data extraction was conducted and aligned to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to facilitate narrative synthesis. Results Thirty-nine studies were included: 16 were qualitative, 21 applied a questionnaire design, and 2 were mixed methods. Overarching thematic areas spanning across the CFIR domains were pharmacy staff engagement (e.g. their positive and negative perceptions), operationalisation of innovations (e.g. insufficient resources and training), and external engagement (e.g. the perceptions of patients and other healthcare professionals, and their relationship with the community pharmacy). Study participants commonly suggested improvements in the training offered, in the engagement strategies adopted, and in the design and quality of innovations. Conclusions This study’s focus on national innovations resulted in high-level recommendations to facilitate the development of successful national implementation strategies. These include (1) more robust piloting of innovations, (2) improved engagement strategies to increase awareness and acceptance of innovations, (3) promoting whole-team involvement within pharmacies to overcome time constraints, and (4) sufficient pre-implementation evaluation to gauge acceptance and appropriateness of innovations within real-world settings. The findings highlight the international challenge of balancing the professional, clinical, and commercial obligations within community pharmacy practice. A preliminary theory of how salient factors influence national implementation in the community pharmacy setting has been developed, with further research necessary to understand how the influence of these factors may differ within varying contexts. Trial registration A protocol for this systematic review was developed and uploaded onto the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews database (Registration number: CRD42016038876 ). Electronic supplementary material The online v...

No abstract

Background: Despite the availability of extensive literature on the effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) on COVID-19 outcomes, the evidence is still controversial. We aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment of the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related outcomes by summarising the currently available evidence.Methods: An umbrella review was conducted using Medline (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Cochrane library and medRxiv from inception to 1 February 2021.Systematic reviews with meta-analysis that evaluated the effect of ACEIs/ARBs on COVID-19-related clinical outcomes were eligible. Studies' quality was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 Critical Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the random-effects modelling including several subgroup analyses. Heterogenicity was assessed using I 2 statistic. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021233398) and reported using PRISMA guidelines.Results: Overall, 47 reviews were eligible for inclusion. Out of the nine COVID-19 outcomes evaluated, there was significant associations between ACEIs/ARBs use and each of death (OR = 0.80, 95%CI = 0.75-0.86; I 2 = 51.9%), death/ICU admission as composite outcome (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.80-0.92; I 2 = 43.9%), severe COVID-19 (OR = 0.86, 95%CI = 0.78-0.95; I 2 = 68%) and hospitalisation (OR = 1.23, 95%CI = 1.04-1.46; I 2 = 76.4%). The significant reduction in death/ ICU admission, however, was higher among studies which presented adjusted measure of effects (OR = 0.63, 95%CI = 0.47-0.84) and were of moderate quality (OR = 0.74, 95%CI = 0.63-0.85). Conclusions:Collective evidence from observational studies indicate a good quality evidence on the significant association between ACEIs/ARBs use and reduction in death and death/ICU admission, but poor-quality evidence on both reducing severe COVID-19 and increasing hospitalisation. Our findings further support the current recommendations of not discontinuing ACEIs/ARBs therapy in patients with COVID-19.

Introduction: The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare worldwide. It has altered service delivery and posed challenges to practitioners in relation to workload, well-being and support. Within primary care, changes in physicians’ activities have been identified and innovative work solutions implemented. However, evidence is lacking regarding the impact of the pandemic on pharmacy personnel who work in primary care. Aim: To explore the impact of the pandemic on the working practice (including the type of services provided) and job satisfaction of pharmacists and pharmacy technicians within Scottish general practice. Due to the stressful nature of the pandemic, we hypothesise that job satisfaction will have been negatively affected. Methods: An online questionnaire was distributed in May–July 2021, approximately 15 months since initial lockdown measures in the UK. The questionnaire was informed by previous literature and underwent expert review and piloting. Analysis involved descriptive statistics, non-parametric statistical tests and thematic analysis. Results: 180 participants responded (approximated 16.1% response rate): 134 pharmacists (74.4%) and 46 technicians (25.6%). Responses indicated greater involvement with administrative tasks and a reduction in the provision of clinical services, which was negatively perceived by pharmacists. There was an increase in remote working, although most participants continued to have a physical presence within general practices. Face-to-face interactions with patients reduced, which was negatively perceived by participants, and telephone consults were considered efficient yet less effective. Professional development activities were challenged by increased workloads and reduced support available. Although workplace stress was apparent, there was no indication of widespread job dissatisfaction. Conclusion: The pandemic has impacted pharmacists and technicians, but it is unknown if changes will be permanent, and there is a need to understand which changes should continue. Future research should explore the impact of altered service delivery, including remote working, on patient care.

Understanding CB integration into routine practice has positive implications for successful implementation. The generic process map can be used to develop targeted resources, and/or be disseminated to facilitate CB delivery and foster whole team involvement. Similar methods could be utilised within other settings, to allow those developing novel services to distil the key processes and consider their integration within routine workflows to effect maximal, efficient implementation and benefit to patient care.